SURYA LIGHT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the Order -in -Original No. 06/2005 -Cus -Adjn. (Commr.) dated 17 -5 -2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

(2.) THE appellant, M/s. Surya Light, filed Bill of Entry for clearing Energy Saving Lamps (CFL) imported by them at Bangalore. On the basis of certain intelligence, elaborate investigations were carried out and proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that they are not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification under the Indo -Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA in short). It was revealed during the course of investigation that initially, the Bill of Entry was filed along with an Invoice from Hong Kong which indicated that the Country of Origin of the goods was China. But later, the original invoice was replaced with a fake invoice which was fabricated to show that the origin of the goods was Sri Lanka. This was done, as per the allegation in the proceedings, in order to get the benefit of exemption from duty under the ISFTA and also in order to avoid the Anti -dumping Duty because if the goods are of Chinese origin, the Energy Saving Lamps are liable to discharge Anti -dumping Duty. Proceedings were initiated against various persons involved and the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, he held that the 76,500 pieces of Energy Saving Lamps imported by M/s. Surya Light are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the customs Act. He imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000/ - on the said goods. He rejected the Certificate of Origin issued by the Sri Lankan Department of Commerce and denied the benefit of ISFTA exemption in terms of Notification No. 26/2000 -Cus. dated 1 -3 -2000 as amended by Notification No. 43/2003 -Cus., dated 18 -3 -2003 to the CFL imported by the appellants. He also held that the impugned goods are liable for levy of Anti -dumping Duty in terms of Notification No. 138/2002 -Cus. dated 10 -12 -2002 as amended. Further, the Adjudicating Authority accepted the value declared by the appellant for the purpose of Customs Duty. However, for charging Additional Duty on Customs, he fixed the RSP at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per piece. He confirmed the total demand of Rs. 1,18,03,735/ - under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with sub -sections (1) and (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Notification No. 13/2002 -C.E. (N.T.) dated 1 -3 -2002, Sections 3A and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, read with Notification No. 138/2002 -Cus dated 10 -12 -2002 along with interest under the provisions of Section 28AB of the Customs Act. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/ - on Shri Umesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Surya Light, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ - on Shri Jagadish P. Bajaj, Representative of M/s. Surya Lights, New Delhi under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order. Therefore, they have come before this Tribunal for relief.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Jayaraj, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.P. Raheja, the learned JCDR, for the Revenue.